14

votes

Does Zero Carb Really Have to Be a High-Fat Diet?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created October 31, 2011 at 7:10 PM

First off, let me preface this by stating that I'm not now nor have I ever been a proponent of zero carb diets. I don't believe that they are necessarily unhealthy, but there are a lot of unanswered questions. The fact that so many feel great doing it leads me to believe that's it's probably fine, though I will say that it seems unduly stressful to combine ZC with any sort of glycolytic activity like resistance training, sprints etc. Hominins have been on a steady evolutionary march toward carnivory for millions of years. The real question is how close we got before the advent of the neolithic. Difficult to say, but I personally would want a more robust liver before going down the carnivore path. C'est la vie.

Now then, onto the meat of this post, as it were. I've noticed that most people choose a reduction in either carbs or fat in order to lose body fat. What I don't understand for those reducing carbs is why there is a see-saw effect with a concomitant increase in dietary fat. Gluconeogenesis is going to run on dietary protein (that you should be eating plenty of, otherwise it will run on muscle) and ketogenesis should run just fine on the uptake by the liver of circulating free fatty acids (and maybe VLDL-TGs as well).

My question then is for those who have been zero carb, have you tried high protein, low fat (basically just EFAs and the small amount of fat in a trimmed steak), low carb, and if so, did you feel worse doing it? I can't fathom how eating more fat would be advantageous unless maybe you were only eating more ketogenic fats like coconut oil, which might increase the manufacture of ketone-bodies. Even then, I kind of doubt that it's necessary. The liver should be manufacturing glucose and ketone-bodies based on need, so long as the substrates are available. An overweight person eating a lot of protein should be supplying the liver with all that is necessary to manufacture both. I wonder if not bothering with added MCTs would result in less ketone-bodies being excreted but supply the brain/heart with the same amount.

Seems to me that the worst approach is high fat, low protein, low carb since you'd be catabolizing muscle as well as unnecessarily eating fat that is being stored. Sure, the net result could be body fat reduction, but it would be slower than it needs to be and would probably plateau at a BF% that is much higher than desired.

Edit: Rabbit starvation as it's spoken of in the paleo community is a myth. It's probably a result of an essential fatty acid or other nutrient deficiency. And besides, if you are eating steaks that are remotely edible, they have a lot of intramuscular fat anyway, plus you add egg yolks for essential fatty acids. As such, a steak-based diet + yolks is plenty of fat, but it's a lot lower than most ketogenic diets. I'm speaking more of the active pursuit of added fat.

Protein from meat isn't toxic because the digestion is so slow and the amino acids (and thus, nitrogen) is liberated at a very measured pace. Not so with protein shakes/supplements however, the consumption of which I would never advocate.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on March 12, 2013
at 06:45 PM

(I realize not everyone agrees with or shares my goals. That's fine. I'm just telling you when I go VLC and why and for how long.)

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on March 12, 2013
at 06:44 PM

I vary between 145 and 155lbs for the past few years. So my when I "cut" and "bulk" its a long term thing. The goal is to after each bulk be at lower body fat. I'd ultimately like to be 155lbs and 4%BF, instead of 8%. And I'd like to cut and be 150lbs and around 4% instead of cut and be 148lbs 6%. So after each successive cut and bulk I'd like to weigh a little more and be a little leaner. Get it?

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on March 12, 2013
at 06:43 PM

I vary between 145 and 155lbs for the past few years. So my when I "cut" and "bulk" its a long term thing. The goal is to after each bulk be at lower body fat. I'd ultimately like to be 155lbs and 4%BF, instead of 8%. And I'd like to cut and be 150lbs and around 4% instead of cut and be 148lbs 6%.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on March 12, 2013
at 06:37 PM

Well, it depends. A typical week I do 2-4 days VLC. When I'm "cutting" I do about a month VLC (that's all I really ever seem to need to get my most shredded). For maintenance I vary between 2 and 4 days VLC. This week I've done 5 days because I'm going to South Africa with my gf on Friday. When I'm bulking I don't do any, typically. I tend to "bulk" in the fall and early winter. And cut only a couple months out of the year. Maintenance is the other 6-8 months.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on March 12, 2013
at 06:36 PM

Well, it depends. A typical week I do 2-4 days VLC. When I'm "cutting" I do about a month VLC (that's all I really ever seem to need to get my most shredded). For maintenance I vary between 2 and 5 days VLC...it really varies a lot. This week I've done 5 days because I'm going to South Africa with my gf on Friday. When I'm bulking I don't do any, typically. It varies though. I tend to "bulk" in the fall and early winter. And cut only a couple months out of the year. Maintenance is the other 6-8 months.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on March 12, 2013
at 06:35 PM

Well, it depends. A typical week I do 2-4 days VLC. When I'm "cutting" I do about a month VLC (that's all I really ever seem to need to get my most shredded). For maintenance I vary between 2 and 5 days VLC...it really varies a lot. This week I've done 5 days because I'm going to South Africa with my gf on Friday. When I'm bulking I don't do any, typically. It varies though. I tend to "bulk" in the fall and early winter. And cut only a couple months out of the year. Maintenance is the other 6-8 months.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on March 12, 2013
at 05:10 PM

How many of these VLC days do you have per week? It sounds kinda like a mini-PSMF.

A0f2f0f632d42215944a798486bddde1

(1377)

on January 15, 2012
at 11:48 PM

@ Ben - I get a huge-ass jar of coconut oil for $25 bucks, lasts me a month and a half and I use 2-6 Tbsp. a day. That's $0.25 for 100 calories, about equal to potatoes @ $1/lb. Compare to grass-fed ground beef at $5/lb, $0.50-$1.00 for 100 calories (depending on lean percentage).

7c5b64bdf359e7cdcb0ee15629abdaa9

(50)

on November 16, 2011
at 08:55 AM

Thanks Travis, that makes sense. It kind of sounds like the 'Dukan Diet' to me...if it's similarly based on lean protein, then, yeah, it's not something I imagine should be sustained for very long. I'm only looking into it for my SIL who is desperate to kick start some weight loss but has a supposed 'revulsion' to animal fat...*sigh*...and I am worried she is going to do more harm than good.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on November 15, 2011
at 05:25 PM

Just make sure you're getting the essential fats and fat soluble vitamins. It would be a lot safer if you did it for short periods of time and then rotated back to more carbs and a bit more fat for a while and then ran another cycle. I personally wouldn't do this for more than a week at a time if I were so inclined.

7c5b64bdf359e7cdcb0ee15629abdaa9

(50)

on November 15, 2011
at 07:30 AM

Hey Ben, thanks :) yeah...found that, guess I was wanting more of a discussion/thread type link, where I could maybe read more from people who have actually tried it/are doing it. Have not been able to find anything so far...I'll keep looking.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on November 14, 2011
at 02:28 PM

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/the-rapid-fat-loss-handbook

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 04, 2011
at 02:56 PM

Hmm, I would have put it the other way around, Travis. For me, at least, carbs actively make me fat, whereas fat can stall my weight loss, but doesn't make me fatter.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 01, 2011
at 07:24 PM

Yeah, I think the key to making it work for me was realizing that my portions were going to be higher than what is normally cited, and that's perfectly fine.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 07:09 PM

I checked the abstract since its not free in which authors say conclusions are for patients with damaged liver which is understandable. Not for healthy people... Now, I don't have full access, maybe somebody from here does

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 07:09 PM

The study is there, and I checked the abstract in which it says its for patients with damaged liver which is understandable. Not for healthy people... Now, I don't have full access, maybe somebody from here does...

Medium avatar

(39821)

on November 01, 2011
at 06:44 PM

Ambi: I agree; I think the liberation and processing of glucogenic amino acids from a steak is an exceedingly slow process and could not possibly elevate blood glucose, and certainly not to the point of being stored as fat. You'd be lucky if it were enough to replete glycogen. Maj: I would wager that Jaminet's numbers are based on protein shakes, not meat. It's very difficult to find studies where they use meat, presumably because it's more difficult to keep track of the composition.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on November 01, 2011
at 06:37 PM

I'm not trying to lose fat at all personally. I'm already freezing my insubstantial ass off due to lack of insulation. I'm really hesitant to think of these things in terms of "calories" since the thermic effect of foods is so different. Protein has about 10X the thermic effect of fat. One calories does not = another calorie from a different macro class.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on November 01, 2011
at 06:33 PM

I agree, Evelyn...I would never recommend this for weight maintenance or gain. Once the desired BF% is achieved, fat must be increased greatly until fat loss halts. It may take some experimentation to dial that amount in. Maj: Fat can make you fat while carbs can make you *not less fat.* It's an important distinction.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on November 01, 2011
at 06:28 PM

This will absolutely work. The key is to build it around lean-ish steak, eat 3 or so good yolks a day and at least 1/4 pound of liver of some sort per week. As long as you let hunger guide you and don't get shy about eating huge portions when necessary, it's pretty startling how well it works. As Mallory said, it almost works too well.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on November 01, 2011
at 06:24 PM

Rabbit starvation = starvation + starved rabbits. It's certainly not well-nourished fat guy + steak & yolks. The idea that you dip below 50% fat on a keto diet and your kidneys/liver explode is nonsense.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 01, 2011
at 06:07 PM

Thanks, ben. Rose, it might be worth a shot. If you were already eating to hunger on your related experiment, though, that might not be it. I'd love to hear about it if you try.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on November 01, 2011
at 05:51 PM

Dan, how is fat cheaper? And the amount of fat you need to *absorb nutrients* (guessing you mean fat-sol vitamins) is miniscule. Any cut of store-bought meat (perhaps except for chicken breast) would have enough fat.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on November 01, 2011
at 05:48 PM

Kasra, I have to agree. Something thats never mentioned is that eating very high levels of fat means taking in a lot of liquid calories. Fats in the levels LCHF folk eat usually have a good portion of it as liquid. And I just cant get my head around how liquid fat at 9cals/gram is MORE satiating than chewing protein at ~4 cals/gram

A0f2f0f632d42215944a798486bddde1

(1377)

on November 01, 2011
at 05:48 PM

@ Travis - if body fat reduction is what you're after, I'd say calories in/calories out is the only real factor. As long as you're eating 30g+ protein you shouldn't lose muscle; after that protein vs. fat is more of a health discussion.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on November 01, 2011
at 05:46 PM

Ambi, sounds great. love tohear the results

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on November 01, 2011
at 05:35 PM

first to even consider rabbit starvation your body needs to be in 'starvation mode' which is alllllmost impossible(save for something like anorexia nervosa....) for 99.999999% of people

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on November 01, 2011
at 05:30 PM

That's fascinating, Ambimorph. I might give this a shot, since my last "high protein" experiment turned out to be very low calorie. Hunger tends to drive me to eating fat rather than protein, but I've not tried anything along the lines of a PSMF.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 01, 2011
at 04:43 PM

You could be right. I would think a self-experiment would be the best indicator in a case like that.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 01, 2011
at 04:39 PM

Evelyn, that claim seems obscure enough to warrant a reference. Even if true, though, it doesn't imply that burning fat was the problem. Burning fat is more efficient and creates fewer ROS's than burning glucose, so that's probably why Dan calls it clean.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 01, 2011
at 04:30 PM

Technically, *stress* does just mean stimulation, but it's an emotionally loaded word which most people take to mean "too much", or "so much that it is detrimental."

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 01, 2011
at 04:25 PM

Yes re keto-adaptation. Even if ultimately you are going to lower fat relative to protein for weight loss reasons, starting out high fat will help the adaptation period.

4781cf8ae1bfcb558dfb056af17bea94

(4359)

on November 01, 2011
at 04:24 PM

I still see no evidence that rabbit starvation isn't real.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 01, 2011
at 04:22 PM

Also, I think it's really easy to fall into the habit of doing what your model of the world says you should even if your experience says otherwise. Bravo for putting observation above explanation!

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 01, 2011
at 04:21 PM

I would prefer know what works than why if I had to choose one. ;-)

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 01, 2011
at 04:19 PM

That's interesting, Rose. I wonder if your protein levels were about the same. I've found I need quite high levels of protein to feel best. Over 200g. Which is why I normally eat 2500-3000 calories when I'm eating 70% fat. So if I were eating 30% fat, I'd probably need around 1200-1500 calories.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 01, 2011
at 04:15 PM

I think we are in agreement about that part.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 01, 2011
at 04:08 PM

In any case, supposing I take your assumptions at face value for the sake of argument. what your calculations show, IMO, is that higher protein levels are only really appropriate if you are getting more fat from your body stores. If you eat 1000 calories of food and it covers your protein requirements (including what's needed for gluconeogenesis), and if you have the fat stores to cover the remainder of your caloric needs, and there is no a priori reason why you can't access them, then you should be fine. This isn't a high protein diet, though. It's a high fat diet from your own fat.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 01, 2011
at 04:05 PM

Despite that meme of excess protein being turned into glucose, I've never heard a single case of someone claiming to have gone out of ketosis because they ate too much protein. I really don't think that's how it works.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 01, 2011
at 04:04 PM

Despite that meme of ecess protein being turned into glucose, I've never heard a single case of someone claiming to have gone out of ketosis because they ate too much protein. I really don't think that's how it works.

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on November 01, 2011
at 03:21 PM

Totally agreed, I notice it when I up my meat intake.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on November 01, 2011
at 02:58 PM

"Fat is a very clean fuel" -- Considering that most dysfunctioning mitochondria are loaded with fragments of incompletely burnt fats that get oxidized and wreak metabolic havoc, one might reconsider that stance.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on November 01, 2011
at 02:55 PM

@maj: regarding kidneys, I said "stress" as in require them to work more which is a fact. I did NOT say "damage". As for eating fat for weight loss, I'm referring to this notion that one should "up the fat" to lose more weight -- either in percent or amount. If doing so by percent works it's likely because you're losing lean mass. The whole concept of a PSMF is to eat the fewest calories while reducing lean mass catabolism.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 02:50 PM

Cliff, thx for the 8% note, I didn't see this.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 02:48 PM

Cliff, yes, until glycogen stores are full, and they are full like constantly if you do not exercise each day.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 02:48 PM

Cliff, yes, until glycogen stores are full, and they are full like constantly.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on November 01, 2011
at 02:26 PM

yes, because as the comments here make clear, it's very hard to maintain. I also think excessive protein consumption can lead to inflammation.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on November 01, 2011
at 01:49 PM

oh and it's good to finally see a question worth thinking and talking about on these boards. Been a little dry lately, no?

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on November 01, 2011
at 01:48 PM

...taking fat up or down from there as I see fit to meet my caloric needs.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on November 01, 2011
at 01:47 PM

2. While I don't eat in the manner you're looking into either I do enjoy examining fat's role in any way of eating. I've said this in regards to generally high-carb eating before but I see fat's role as rather neutral. It's important for vitamin-delivery yes, and it's certainly not the demon that SAD makes it out to be, but I still don't see anything one would gain be eating gobs of it, beyond merely relying on it for pure calories as carbsane points out. In my own slow leaning out process I am keeping protein at around 1g/pound-of-lean-mass, carbs at about 1.5g/pound-of-lean-mass, and then...

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on November 01, 2011
at 01:43 PM

1. I like seeing the rabbit-starvation thing put to rest. Just as its hard to avoid HFCS in eating food these days, it'd be quite difficult to not get the small amounts of EFA we need to function. Eating anything like what most would call *high pro low fat* would still I'd wager net you enough fat to function quite well.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on November 01, 2011
at 01:41 PM

@Melissa, havent you called that way of eating the faleo diet?

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on November 01, 2011
at 01:27 PM

@cliff, *carbs are mostly stored as glycogen and burned, fat is stored as fat* is true only when excess calories are present.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on November 01, 2011
at 01:16 PM

the study you quoted used only 8% protien... I don't think a tre high prot diet is evenkeogenic..

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on November 01, 2011
at 01:10 PM

carbs are mostly stored as glycogen and burned, fat is stored as fat...

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 11:51 AM

Elizabeth Ward, founder and president of the British Kidney Patient Association said: "If you have healthy kidneys, you can't eat enough protein to damage your kidneys."

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 11:48 AM

*and although I do not believe LC will trash your kidneys, this much protein consistently will at least stress them* Where is the evidence ? Here is one: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110420184429.htm

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 11:43 AM

*and although I do not believe LC will trash your kidneys, this much protein consistently will at least stress them* Evidence for healthy humans and/or animals ?

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 11:42 AM

*This notion of eating fat for weight loss is physiologically misguided* - And the notion of eating carbs isn't ?

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 11:39 AM

*You'll get enough fat (IOW the EFA's) even from lean animal protein sources* - Enough for what ? Greaves ?

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 08:24 AM

I edited the post with calculations.

Cc69a51b427eaad36251cce9dcca4d3a

(1074)

on November 01, 2011
at 08:01 AM

Plus I thought the whole point was to eat to our health, become leptin sensitive and optimize our mitochondrial furnaces. Can't do that with too much protein and not enough fat (esp after you're already lean).

Cc69a51b427eaad36251cce9dcca4d3a

(1074)

on November 01, 2011
at 08:00 AM

If you're overweight, eating a high fat diet is probably slow to lose fat as you said. Eating more protein so you can utilize your own adipose tissue is the goal. If you're lean at your genetic balance, I'd eat a higher fat diet with moderate protein (20-30%). Too high of a protein in the diet gives 1. Faileo diet (not enough calories) or 2. burden on your kidneys. Just because you don't have outright kidney failure doesn't mean its good for you. As excess amino acids must be de-aminated and excreted in urine, the renal system must work hard to filter/secrete them into waste.

9205855633f4d88fd78339aad4fc54ff

on November 01, 2011
at 07:49 AM

Of course usually I don't (need to) keep fat that low and can eat other kind of meats. But I never really go LCHF diet (at least if/when I don't need a really big amount of energy). I think JimmyMore&co. can't get seriously slim because still convinced that "fat doesn't make you fat", and the diet must be HF.

9205855633f4d88fd78339aad4fc54ff

on November 01, 2011
at 07:39 AM

I did/do it. Even more when no time/desire to be active, to have/keep a 6-pack. So: chiken breasts, water-canned tuna, shrimps etc. Side effect: a bit boring. Can be hard if you don't live alone. It might affect peak performance in sports. But for sure doesn't make me weak etc.: I can do normal tasks, walk, run. Did it ZC most days of the week.OK. Now do it VLC(couple carrots, sometimes a LF greek yogurt etc). My take on Rabbit Starvation: yeah, if already <8%BF on your body, having only lean rabbits (or similar) as an option to eat is not that great of a situation.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 06:39 AM

And anyway, so little fat with little carb means serious calorie restriction. With known toxic treas-hold of protein this can be easily calculated. And we know that hi CR diets are prone to yo yo effect.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 06:36 AM

I don't think so. Excess protein is converted to glucose.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 06:35 AM

I don't think so. Exce

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 06:33 AM

Replacing some meat with fat is not the same thing as adding fat to meat.

Fb67dc30cead043d1d13ea503a3044dc

(3280)

on November 01, 2011
at 06:22 AM

I find fat to be the most satiating thing I can eat, too.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on November 01, 2011
at 05:41 AM

May be worthwhile to try it again if you ever want to lose fat rapidly.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on November 01, 2011
at 05:40 AM

Annie: I don't believe that I could have eaten like this initially without feeling hypoglycemic. Due perhaps to mineral deficiencies that have been addressed (as always, chromium, manganese, magnesium...maybe even zinc) I'm now able to eat as described or really high carb or whatever on the fly with no issues.

6670b38baf0aae7f4d8ac2463ddc37c0

(3946)

on November 01, 2011
at 01:36 AM

It would be interesting to see whether I would be less hungry on higher protein now that I have been doing this for a while. Maybe I'll try it.

6670b38baf0aae7f4d8ac2463ddc37c0

(3946)

on November 01, 2011
at 01:25 AM

Travis-I have been thinking about this idea lately, of eating low-carb, lower-fat, higher-protein, now that I am "fat adapted" I might not get as hungry as when I first started low-carb. I believe I could lose additional body fat this way. Maybe it is time to experiment.

5ef574d7893bc816ec52e04139e9bc09

(6097)

on November 01, 2011
at 12:06 AM

^The tradeoff would be marginal at best. I suspect that for most people the satiation per calorie of a slab of meat is higher than that of any isolated fat source.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on October 31, 2011
at 11:23 PM

I could if it increases satiation.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on October 31, 2011
at 11:20 PM

Exactly, Nance. If you have extra body fat, then the higher protein, lower fat diet is equivalent to a higher fat one when you account for using body stores.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on October 31, 2011
at 11:18 PM

Satiation is a totally separate issue from the supposed toxicity of protein from biologically-consistent sources.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on October 31, 2011
at 11:17 PM

A person with adequate fat intake doesn't then go and get a day's worth of calories from protein. So your scenario of eating 3 lbs of (very low fat?) meat, and then adding fat, doesn't really make sense, either. It's a matter of comparing getting fully satiated with or without fat.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on October 31, 2011
at 10:36 PM

The idea that eating 3 pounds of meat in a sitting is toxic but that adding fat on top of that is not makes no sense. What's the reasoning? Is the meat toxic or isn't it? By what mechanism does adding fat to meat make it non-toxic? Unless you're not drinking enough water (and are thus interfering with excess nitrogen excretion) I don't see why it would be toxic at all. Ammonia is toxic, so we excrete it. No problemo.

4781cf8ae1bfcb558dfb056af17bea94

(4359)

on October 31, 2011
at 10:27 PM

So, you are saying that it hasn't been established that protein poisoning is a real phenomenon, not that is has been proven that it isn't, right?

2870a69b9c0c0a19a919e54cb3a62137

(1520)

on October 31, 2011
at 10:24 PM

It's not meant as a red herring. You know some fats have disadvantages. I'll leave it at that.

4781cf8ae1bfcb558dfb056af17bea94

(4359)

on October 31, 2011
at 10:16 PM

Travis, why are you assuming that Europeans didn't enjoy their meat with enough fat to avoid rabbit starvation? I've never seen anyone argue that the concept is a myth, though I've also never seen any proof of beyond the claims of an arctic explorer/con-artist...

Medium avatar

(39821)

on October 31, 2011
at 10:13 PM

Yeah, I mean that heavy cream hits the small intestine, gets packaged into chylomicrons and shipped off to the adipocytes for storage, which then release that fat. I can't see how the 1600 calories of fat from a pint of heavy cream has aided fat loss in any conceivable way.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on October 31, 2011
at 10:03 PM

I won't get into the paleo-ness of one diet or another because it's a red herring at best. You're right though, I'm talking about getting all the necessary nutrients from the least amount of energy (especially fat, which is most likely to be stored as fat) and then relying on existing fat stores for energy. ZC usually results in plenty of fat loss no matter what, up until a point. I guess it comes down to whether the individual is at the BF% they truly desire and if not, do they have a realistic trajectory aimed at that BF%?

Medium avatar

(39821)

on October 31, 2011
at 09:41 PM

That's weird; I always get way more satiety from protein than fat. I guess if it works, it works though.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on October 31, 2011
at 09:40 PM

That good fat isn't unhealthy isn't at issue here, it's whether those actively attempting to reduce their body fat should be pursuing additional fat or if they ought to just rely mostly on protein.

2870a69b9c0c0a19a919e54cb3a62137

(1520)

on October 31, 2011
at 09:15 PM

The added fats aren't really paleo by my standards, but they're convenient and not that bad. A steady supply of yolks is also a modern convenience. Good pastured animal fats would be ideal while delivering the necessary nutrients... Your concern seems to be the lower nutrient density of other fats compared to yolks, resulting in higher energy intake. While I've never expressly looked, I haven't heard of liberal energy intake from fat on a ZC diet being problematic in weight loss. I can imagine it being problematic with cream since it's very palatable, then again cream isn't exactly ZC.

3a567c1637db69f1455ce35e78201a2c

(1054)

on October 31, 2011
at 08:55 PM

Lex Rooker has been eating 85% fat 15% protein and zero carbs for over 5 years. And he eats it all raw with no problems. He thinks the key is eating organ meats along with muscle meats. http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/journals/lex's-journal/1390/ See posting #1396

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on October 31, 2011
at 08:54 PM

Ah, Travis, thanks to your last comment I get what you're saying and I agree. I don't really use much extra fat beyond what my beef and eggs supply plus cream in my coffee. If I don't have meat fat for my veggies after I cook the meat, I do sometimes add a little butter.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on October 31, 2011
at 08:47 PM

Well yeah, I'm not talking about a no-fat diet of course. I'm talking about lean-ish steak, a few eggs per day and as always, organs eaten at least weekly, which are themselves fatty. I don't see why adding butter, cheese, cream, coconut oil on top of that is necessary, especially if fat loss is desired.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on October 31, 2011
at 08:46 PM

I could see high dietary fat playing a role in sebum production, but that's more of a non-essential function.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on October 31, 2011
at 08:45 PM

If humans were poisoned by eating too much meat, we of European descent simply would not exist right now.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on October 31, 2011
at 08:44 PM

Yeah the people eating them are starving to death + eating lean rabbits. These aren't healthy people who are getting all their meat from rabbits, but also getting all of their essential fats, vitamins and minerals from elsewhere. The only thing to take away from rabbit starvation is "man cannot live on starving lagomorphs alone" to which a crass fellow might reply "yeah, no sh*t."

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on October 31, 2011
at 08:34 PM

I think even the leanest commercially available meats aren't as lean as winter-starved rabbits. I don't have cites, but I recall from my reading of Stefansson and other explorers that the meat that causes "rabbit starvation" is almost literally 0% fat. The critters are half-dead from lack of food themselves.

2870a69b9c0c0a19a919e54cb3a62137

(1520)

on October 31, 2011
at 08:29 PM

eh, I'm ZC and my body fat % has always been ideal. I can only fathom how awful I'd feel without a high fat intake. Really, there's a physiological need for fat and the nutrients maj mentioned. Even yolks are 74% fat by energy.

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on October 31, 2011
at 08:29 PM

Higher fat works better for me too. Better skin, mostly.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on October 31, 2011
at 08:24 PM

Yeah, I mean you have people like Peter of Hyperlipid who are eating high fat ketogenic diets because they don't want their adipocytes to shrink any further. If you're not at your desired BF%, why not restrict the fat until you get there and then up it to where you are now or close to it?

4781cf8ae1bfcb558dfb056af17bea94

(4359)

on October 31, 2011
at 08:23 PM

I didn't know protein poisoning wasn't real -- can you post some links demonstrating that?

Medium avatar

(39821)

on October 31, 2011
at 08:13 PM

You'd get all of those from the yolks added in the pursuit of EFAs and the organs we all should be eating anyway.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on October 31, 2011
at 08:08 PM

Yep. I don't understand it either. Which is why I made that crack about physiology and my stoopidity. I spent too many years thinking CICO absolutely *had* to work, and dropping cals to ridiculously low levels while working out like a hamster on meth, only to get fatter every year. Now I just accept that I don't understand the mechanism, and allow my body's responses to dictate my practices.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on October 31, 2011
at 08:04 PM

I don't understand why you wouldn't run fine on body fat alone. The fat we eat just gets shipped off to the fat cells anyway and then released from there.

76f3ead3aa977d876bcf3331d35a36e9

(4620)

on October 31, 2011
at 08:01 PM

Yeah, I don't really know much about it. But even you said in your answer: "practice beta oxidation pathways i.e. upregulate specific enzymes and make it efficient enough to provide enough energy for body needs", as if to imply there is a spectrum and the body gets better at it (beta oxidation).

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 31, 2011
at 07:50 PM

Also, caloric surplus can be dissipated as heat, by activation of suppressed pathways etc...

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 31, 2011
at 07:49 PM

You can't be bad on gluconeogenesis rly, if you do you are not alive. The same goes with beta oxidation. Those are fundamental.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on October 31, 2011
at 07:24 PM

These are the impressions I have as well. I assume in the short term I could probably get away with a fat deficit because I'm still well padded; the danger probably arises in slim individuals who have no fat reserve. That assumption also assumes I'll be able to release that fat from my reserves but recent experience indicates I can.

  • Size75 avatar

    asked by

    (39821)
  • Views
    6.8K
  • Last Activity
    1404D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

15 Answers

10
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 31, 2011
at 07:20 PM

Because you have to eat something, and eating only protein is impossible [rabbit starvation].

So it has to be fat.

You say you can't fathom how eating fat helps in weight loss, but the point is to practice beta oxidation pathways i.e. upregulate specific enzymes and make it efficient enough to provide enough energy for body needs. Body ditches stuff it doesn't use much, or downregulate them.

High protein input is toxic, while high fat input doesn't seem to be, even with PUFA in adequate context [i.e. low fructose, hi vitamin E and other].

Fat provides bunch of essential nutrients: A,D,E,K,Q10,ALA, and who knows what not, and those are some of the most important ones.

Using low carb, low fat diet = malnourishment unless you supplement like Kurzweil

=== EDIT ===

The diet in question is CR. Lets see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat

Adult mammalian muscle flesh consists of roughly 75 percent water, 19 percent protein, 2.5 percent intramuscular fat, 1.2 percent carbohydrates and 2.3 percent other soluble non-protein substances

http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk/logout/calorie_intake.htm

In 2011, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition published new energy recommendations. The new UK Department of Health Estimated Average Requirements (EAR) are a daily calorie intake of: 2079 calories per day for women (up from 1940) 2605 calories per day for men (up from 2550)

http://perfecthealthdiet.com/?cat=45 (I really need to check this)

At a protein intake of 230 g/day (920 calories), the body???s ability to convert ammonia to urea is saturated. [3] This means the nitrogen from every additional gram of protein lingers in the body as ammonia, a toxin.

So lets say caloric intake CI is 2000 cal. So, lest say zero carb, low fat, high protein diet is (C,F,P) = (10%,20%,70%) ratio of macronutrients.

 10% C * 2000 CI = 200 kcal of carbs = 50g 
 20% F * 2000 CI = 400 kcal of fat intake which is 44g
 70% P * 2000 CI = 1400 kcal of protein intake. 
 1400/4 = 350g of protein / 19% = 1842g of meat.
 1842/3 = 614g of meat per meal.

Sounds doable for a single day or two, and still not zero carb [although if we subtract fiber it could be close] and Jaminet would consider this far into toxic zone (again, I really need to check this, I don't trust Jaminet). Calculation is not that precise, but it will suffice.

To be more realistic we would have to reduce calories to around 1000.

So it could be achieved, I don't think it could be sustained on the long run by majority of people and I need to check about toxicity, Travis may be even right on this.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on October 31, 2011
at 08:47 PM

Well yeah, I'm not talking about a no-fat diet of course. I'm talking about lean-ish steak, a few eggs per day and as always, organs eaten at least weekly, which are themselves fatty. I don't see why adding butter, cheese, cream, coconut oil on top of that is necessary, especially if fat loss is desired.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on October 31, 2011
at 07:24 PM

These are the impressions I have as well. I assume in the short term I could probably get away with a fat deficit because I'm still well padded; the danger probably arises in slim individuals who have no fat reserve. That assumption also assumes I'll be able to release that fat from my reserves but recent experience indicates I can.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 06:36 AM

I don't think so. Excess protein is converted to glucose.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 06:39 AM

And anyway, so little fat with little carb means serious calorie restriction. With known toxic treas-hold of protein this can be easily calculated. And we know that hi CR diets are prone to yo yo effect.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 07:09 PM

The study is there, and I checked the abstract in which it says its for patients with damaged liver which is understandable. Not for healthy people... Now, I don't have full access, maybe somebody from here does...

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 01, 2011
at 04:05 PM

Despite that meme of excess protein being turned into glucose, I've never heard a single case of someone claiming to have gone out of ketosis because they ate too much protein. I really don't think that's how it works.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on October 31, 2011
at 08:54 PM

Ah, Travis, thanks to your last comment I get what you're saying and I agree. I don't really use much extra fat beyond what my beef and eggs supply plus cream in my coffee. If I don't have meat fat for my veggies after I cook the meat, I do sometimes add a little butter.

2870a69b9c0c0a19a919e54cb3a62137

(1520)

on October 31, 2011
at 10:24 PM

It's not meant as a red herring. You know some fats have disadvantages. I'll leave it at that.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on October 31, 2011
at 08:13 PM

You'd get all of those from the yolks added in the pursuit of EFAs and the organs we all should be eating anyway.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on October 31, 2011
at 10:03 PM

I won't get into the paleo-ness of one diet or another because it's a red herring at best. You're right though, I'm talking about getting all the necessary nutrients from the least amount of energy (especially fat, which is most likely to be stored as fat) and then relying on existing fat stores for energy. ZC usually results in plenty of fat loss no matter what, up until a point. I guess it comes down to whether the individual is at the BF% they truly desire and if not, do they have a realistic trajectory aimed at that BF%?

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on October 31, 2011
at 11:20 PM

Exactly, Nance. If you have extra body fat, then the higher protein, lower fat diet is equivalent to a higher fat one when you account for using body stores.

2870a69b9c0c0a19a919e54cb3a62137

(1520)

on October 31, 2011
at 08:29 PM

eh, I'm ZC and my body fat % has always been ideal. I can only fathom how awful I'd feel without a high fat intake. Really, there's a physiological need for fat and the nutrients maj mentioned. Even yolks are 74% fat by energy.

2870a69b9c0c0a19a919e54cb3a62137

(1520)

on October 31, 2011
at 09:15 PM

The added fats aren't really paleo by my standards, but they're convenient and not that bad. A steady supply of yolks is also a modern convenience. Good pastured animal fats would be ideal while delivering the necessary nutrients... Your concern seems to be the lower nutrient density of other fats compared to yolks, resulting in higher energy intake. While I've never expressly looked, I haven't heard of liberal energy intake from fat on a ZC diet being problematic in weight loss. I can imagine it being problematic with cream since it's very palatable, then again cream isn't exactly ZC.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 06:35 AM

I don't think so. Exce

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 01, 2011
at 04:04 PM

Despite that meme of ecess protein being turned into glucose, I've never heard a single case of someone claiming to have gone out of ketosis because they ate too much protein. I really don't think that's how it works.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 01, 2011
at 04:08 PM

In any case, supposing I take your assumptions at face value for the sake of argument. what your calculations show, IMO, is that higher protein levels are only really appropriate if you are getting more fat from your body stores. If you eat 1000 calories of food and it covers your protein requirements (including what's needed for gluconeogenesis), and if you have the fat stores to cover the remainder of your caloric needs, and there is no a priori reason why you can't access them, then you should be fine. This isn't a high protein diet, though. It's a high fat diet from your own fat.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 08:24 AM

I edited the post with calculations.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 01, 2011
at 04:15 PM

I think we are in agreement about that part.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on November 01, 2011
at 06:44 PM

Ambi: I agree; I think the liberation and processing of glucogenic amino acids from a steak is an exceedingly slow process and could not possibly elevate blood glucose, and certainly not to the point of being stored as fat. You'd be lucky if it were enough to replete glycogen. Maj: I would wager that Jaminet's numbers are based on protein shakes, not meat. It's very difficult to find studies where they use meat, presumably because it's more difficult to keep track of the composition.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 07:09 PM

I checked the abstract since its not free in which authors say conclusions are for patients with damaged liver which is understandable. Not for healthy people... Now, I don't have full access, maybe somebody from here does

7
100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 01, 2011
at 04:58 PM

This is a somewhat timely question for me. I've eaten high fat ZC for 2 years, but for the last week, I've practiced basically a PSMF. I've tried this a couple of times in the past 2 years, but never lasted more than a day for hunger. So this time I decided that rather than figure my protein needs by formula, to just eat low fat protein to satiation. I figure I'm eating between 700 and 1000 calories, and I'm feeling fine. I'm not hungry, tired, or foggy.

It turns out that I really need a lot of protein to feel best. Even experts disagree on the minimum. Moreover, most calculations don't include the extra you would need for gluconeogenesis, which is substantial if you eat no carbohydrate. Looking back, I realized that on my ad libitum 70% fat diet I was eating 2500-3000 calories, which comes out to a lot of protein, and that's when I realized how very much I would need to eat to properly be protein sparing.

Anyway, I'm doing this to try to address the last 10-15 or so pounds of fat that I seem to have settled with on my current diet. I've already lost 5. It's probably not a healthy strategy long-term, because of nutrients and absorption that fat helps with, and because it does exclude some important foods. Fortunately, at this rate it won't be necessary for very long. Presumably, it would also stop feeling good when fat stores are sufficiently low, too.

The most interesting part to me is that once again I'm going by hunger, not by a pre-computed numerical guess at what I need, and this seems to be a function of protein levels, since they are roughly constant no matter how much fat I'm getting.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on November 01, 2011
at 05:46 PM

Ambi, sounds great. love tohear the results

Medium avatar

(39821)

on November 01, 2011
at 06:28 PM

This will absolutely work. The key is to build it around lean-ish steak, eat 3 or so good yolks a day and at least 1/4 pound of liver of some sort per week. As long as you let hunger guide you and don't get shy about eating huge portions when necessary, it's pretty startling how well it works. As Mallory said, it almost works too well.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 01, 2011
at 07:24 PM

Yeah, I think the key to making it work for me was realizing that my portions were going to be higher than what is normally cited, and that's perfectly fine.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 01, 2011
at 06:07 PM

Thanks, ben. Rose, it might be worth a shot. If you were already eating to hunger on your related experiment, though, that might not be it. I'd love to hear about it if you try.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on November 01, 2011
at 05:30 PM

That's fascinating, Ambimorph. I might give this a shot, since my last "high protein" experiment turned out to be very low calorie. Hunger tends to drive me to eating fat rather than protein, but I've not tried anything along the lines of a PSMF.

7
3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on October 31, 2011
at 07:49 PM

This is where my lack of knowledge of physiology works to my advantage, I think. Since slashing my carb intake back in Sept 2009 to XLC/ZC levels, I've consistently found that I feel better when I eat more fat and less protein, although I have no really good theory as to why that would be. Both the anti-fat and pro-fat arguments seem logical in their own way to me, but my experience puts me in the pro-fat camp.

In the beginning I just took the standard advice and ate all the fat first, and added butter, too. About six months in I just found it hard to eat that much fat (it was around 75% when I put it in Nutritiondata.com), and my consumption just naturally dropped to around 65%, where it stays when I don't consciously fiddle with it. When I add HWC to my coffee, I get lots more energy, but as I wrote elsewhere today, it gives me a mild stomach ache.

A few months ago I tried giving up red meat in what turned out to be a short-lived experiment (I was trying to avoid Neu5gc to see if it would affect my autoimmune issues). I ate only fish and chicken and I avoided dairy since it came from cattle, which are the biggest source of Neu5gc. Bottom line: I felt like utter crap, and when I "cheated" by eating some fatty beef brisket my husband had smoked, I perked up like a houseplant finally getting some water.

When I calculated my numbers, though, I was shocked to see that not only had I been getting very little fat (maybe 30%, iirc), but I was eating around 900 cals/day. So it could have simply been insufficient calories on which to run my (admittedly mostly sedentary) body.

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on October 31, 2011
at 08:29 PM

Higher fat works better for me too. Better skin, mostly.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on October 31, 2011
at 08:46 PM

I could see high dietary fat playing a role in sebum production, but that's more of a non-essential function.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on October 31, 2011
at 08:04 PM

I don't understand why you wouldn't run fine on body fat alone. The fat we eat just gets shipped off to the fat cells anyway and then released from there.

3a567c1637db69f1455ce35e78201a2c

(1054)

on October 31, 2011
at 08:55 PM

Lex Rooker has been eating 85% fat 15% protein and zero carbs for over 5 years. And he eats it all raw with no problems. He thinks the key is eating organ meats along with muscle meats. http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/journals/lex's-journal/1390/ See posting #1396

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 01, 2011
at 04:22 PM

Also, I think it's really easy to fall into the habit of doing what your model of the world says you should even if your experience says otherwise. Bravo for putting observation above explanation!

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on October 31, 2011
at 08:08 PM

Yep. I don't understand it either. Which is why I made that crack about physiology and my stoopidity. I spent too many years thinking CICO absolutely *had* to work, and dropping cals to ridiculously low levels while working out like a hamster on meth, only to get fatter every year. Now I just accept that I don't understand the mechanism, and allow my body's responses to dictate my practices.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 01, 2011
at 04:21 PM

I would prefer know what works than why if I had to choose one. ;-)

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 01, 2011
at 04:19 PM

That's interesting, Rose. I wonder if your protein levels were about the same. I've found I need quite high levels of protein to feel best. Over 200g. Which is why I normally eat 2500-3000 calories when I'm eating 70% fat. So if I were eating 30% fat, I'd probably need around 1200-1500 calories.

5
24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on November 01, 2011
at 11:32 AM

Yes and no.

No for weight loss. You'll get enough fat (IOW the EFA's) even from lean animal protein sources, and the rest comes from your own fat. This notion of eating fat for weight loss is physiologically misguided. Of course if it helps you stay on a plan to eat more fat, that's another story.

Yes for weight maintenance. In order to use protein for energy the nitrogen must be stripped from the molecule which is excreted as urea. I've seen many thresholds for theoretical maximum protein intakes. These are as low as 250g/day and as high as 400g/day. Even at 400g/day that's 1600 cal which will not be maintenance calories for many people, and although I do not believe LC will trash your kidneys, this much protein consistently will at least stress them. Therefore if you're not getting your energy calories from carbs, they must come from fat!

I think many here might find this study interesting: http://www.jbc.org/content/80/2/461.full.pdf

"According to their data the average daily food partition is about 280 gm. of protein, 135 gm. of fat, and 54 gm. of carbohydrate of which the bulk is derived from the glycogen of the meat eaten."

This works out to %F/P/C roughly 47/45/8 ... not nearly as high fat as many imagine.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 11:42 AM

*This notion of eating fat for weight loss is physiologically misguided* - And the notion of eating carbs isn't ?

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 11:43 AM

*and although I do not believe LC will trash your kidneys, this much protein consistently will at least stress them* Evidence for healthy humans and/or animals ?

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 02:50 PM

Cliff, thx for the 8% note, I didn't see this.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on November 01, 2011
at 06:33 PM

I agree, Evelyn...I would never recommend this for weight maintenance or gain. Once the desired BF% is achieved, fat must be increased greatly until fat loss halts. It may take some experimentation to dial that amount in. Maj: Fat can make you fat while carbs can make you *not less fat.* It's an important distinction.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 11:48 AM

*and although I do not believe LC will trash your kidneys, this much protein consistently will at least stress them* Where is the evidence ? Here is one: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110420184429.htm

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on November 01, 2011
at 01:16 PM

the study you quoted used only 8% protien... I don't think a tre high prot diet is evenkeogenic..

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 01, 2011
at 04:30 PM

Technically, *stress* does just mean stimulation, but it's an emotionally loaded word which most people take to mean "too much", or "so much that it is detrimental."

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 02:48 PM

Cliff, yes, until glycogen stores are full, and they are full like constantly if you do not exercise each day.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 02:48 PM

Cliff, yes, until glycogen stores are full, and they are full like constantly.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on November 01, 2011
at 02:55 PM

@maj: regarding kidneys, I said "stress" as in require them to work more which is a fact. I did NOT say "damage". As for eating fat for weight loss, I'm referring to this notion that one should "up the fat" to lose more weight -- either in percent or amount. If doing so by percent works it's likely because you're losing lean mass. The whole concept of a PSMF is to eat the fewest calories while reducing lean mass catabolism.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 11:51 AM

Elizabeth Ward, founder and president of the British Kidney Patient Association said: "If you have healthy kidneys, you can't eat enough protein to damage your kidneys."

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on November 01, 2011
at 01:10 PM

carbs are mostly stored as glycogen and burned, fat is stored as fat...

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on November 01, 2011
at 01:27 PM

@cliff, *carbs are mostly stored as glycogen and burned, fat is stored as fat* is true only when excess calories are present.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on November 01, 2011
at 11:39 AM

*You'll get enough fat (IOW the EFA's) even from lean animal protein sources* - Enough for what ? Greaves ?

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 04, 2011
at 02:56 PM

Hmm, I would have put it the other way around, Travis. For me, at least, carbs actively make me fat, whereas fat can stall my weight loss, but doesn't make me fatter.

5
07154e6d8e42065f230d06249700fe5b

(2057)

on October 31, 2011
at 07:48 PM

I've had nothing but success with PSMFs... But I tend to only go there one week/month. When I do, I'll pretty much stick to 500-800 calories of seafood or lean fish. I don't tend to regain any weight I lose over the rest of the month, so that's a plus. I've never experienced anything close to rabbit starvation or really any signs that I was doing something unhealthful, but it's somewhat austere to spend the majority of your time eating like this, and probably not too realistic, as I don't intend to continue with the PSMF after I'm at a good weight.

5
9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on October 31, 2011
at 07:25 PM

Yes, I have tried very high protein very low fat. It was one of the first paleo-type diets I tried. And honestly, my keto adaption on that diet was worse. I felt weird and light-headed more often than on the higher-fat keto diet. Most keto-ers start out high protein because of fat fear and shift towards higher fat because it's more sustainable. But then again I was never very overweight, so maybe it's a different experience if you are.

Edit: I don't think you need to add fat your meaty diet either though, IF you are eating nose to tail and getting some fatty cuts in or eating reasonably fatty ground meat. I don't add heavy cream or coconut oil to my diet, personally, but I might if my only meat was chicken, turkey, or fish.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on November 01, 2011
at 02:26 PM

yes, because as the comments here make clear, it's very hard to maintain. I also think excessive protein consumption can lead to inflammation.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on November 01, 2011
at 05:41 AM

May be worthwhile to try it again if you ever want to lose fat rapidly.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on November 01, 2011
at 01:41 PM

@Melissa, havent you called that way of eating the faleo diet?

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on November 01, 2011
at 03:21 PM

Totally agreed, I notice it when I up my meat intake.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 01, 2011
at 04:25 PM

Yes re keto-adaptation. Even if ultimately you are going to lower fat relative to protein for weight loss reasons, starting out high fat will help the adaptation period.

4
6670b38baf0aae7f4d8ac2463ddc37c0

(3946)

on October 31, 2011
at 08:53 PM

This is not a very scientific answer, but I, for one, am much less hungry on a high-fat, low-carb diet, versus a low-fat, low-carb (higher protein) diet. Being less hungry, or not hungry at all, allows me to stick with the low-carb, which is what gives me the best results for weight and fat loss.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on October 31, 2011
at 09:41 PM

That's weird; I always get way more satiety from protein than fat. I guess if it works, it works though.

6670b38baf0aae7f4d8ac2463ddc37c0

(3946)

on November 01, 2011
at 01:36 AM

It would be interesting to see whether I would be less hungry on higher protein now that I have been doing this for a while. Maybe I'll try it.

Fb67dc30cead043d1d13ea503a3044dc

(3280)

on November 01, 2011
at 06:22 AM

I find fat to be the most satiating thing I can eat, too.

3
9bb33374b7e0eb1208920486d445c818

on November 01, 2011
at 06:46 AM

I believe I might be able to give some useful input on this as I have dieted and weight trained my way down from 19% to <10% bodyfat.

First of all, when losing bodyfat, calories DO matter! Hence, you do need some form of caloric restriction in order to force your body to lose fat. There are basically three ways people go about this, 1) Not worry about macronutrient ratios and just count calories, 2) Eat high carb-low fat and count calories, and 3) Eat low carb-high fat and count calories.

The first two methods do produce fat loss, but they also produce some muscle loss and ravenous hunger if you keep on progressively reducing your calorie intake to achieve continued weight loss. I've found this to be true regardless of protein intake, which should ideally be kept high if you are dieting AND weight training.

The third approach, i.e. low carb with caloric restriction has the best effect on body composition. This is my opinion based on personal experience and I feel it is backed by most of the studies conducted by Jeff Volek.

Now, if you're low carbing for fat loss, it's different from low carbing in general where you only count carbs. Do count carbs and try to keep them in the range of 60-100g per day to meet the daily glucose needs of the body. Keep protein around 1.25g/lb of lean mass. Since you want to lose fat, start off with a calorie deficit of 600 calories. For example, if your maintenance calories are 2500, you will start off by eating 1900 calories where the fat calories will be what you get when you subtract your carb and protein calories from 1900. This should be your strategy if you want to lose a minimum of 1.5 lbs of fat per week. Use a 24 hr period on the weekend to carb up and replenish your glycogen stores since you're going to be weight training during the week. Make sure to eat around maintenance calories during your carb up to 'reset' your metabolism. It has to be high carb, low fat and moderate protein in order to prevent accumulation of bodyfat.

After one week, on the morning of your first carb up, monitor your fat loss to see if it's a minimum of 1.5 lbs. If yes, don't change anything for the second week. If it's less, decrease FAT INTAKE by around 15g. You don't want to be reducing carbs much, they should stay in the 60-100g range. To increase the calorie deficit, decrease fat intake and force your body to use more of your bodyfat for fuel. This increased calorie deficit is required because your body adapts to the new intake and reduces it's metabolism. If you want continuous fat loss, you need to progressively reduce your daily fat intake by about 15g, but only when your fat loss for the week is < 1.5 lb. Otherwise, keep everything the same.

The reason why PSMF is not a good long term strategy is because it will cause your metabolism to crash. You don't want that. When you get close to your goal and want to accelerate results, PSMF is a good idea but only for a max of 2 non-consecutive days a week. I used it sparingly myself but only when I got to around 12% bodyfat. Also, MCTs and Coconut oil are a very useful tool to encourage the body to burn fat at low bodyfat levels. You do need to count the calories though, as you would for any other calorie source. Simply adding them on top of your diet won't give you any fat loss benefit.

3
A0f2f0f632d42215944a798486bddde1

(1377)

on October 31, 2011
at 09:22 PM

It's better than SAD, but fat is a very clean fuel so it's probably healthier to eat a moderate amount (under a pound per day) of meat and replace the rest of your carbs with fat. You don't have any huge muscle-gaining goals (and you don't need that much protein to build muscle anyway), you'll be getting plenty of nutrients from the meat you are eating, and fat is a lot cheaper. Lastly, fat makes meals taste better and helps you absorb nutrients.

Way I see it, you might not experience protein toxicity/nitrogen/ammonia/whatever from eating a ton of meat, but you definitely won't get it from fat.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on October 31, 2011
at 09:40 PM

That good fat isn't unhealthy isn't at issue here, it's whether those actively attempting to reduce their body fat should be pursuing additional fat or if they ought to just rely mostly on protein.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on November 01, 2011
at 06:37 PM

I'm not trying to lose fat at all personally. I'm already freezing my insubstantial ass off due to lack of insulation. I'm really hesitant to think of these things in terms of "calories" since the thermic effect of foods is so different. Protein has about 10X the thermic effect of fat. One calories does not = another calorie from a different macro class.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 01, 2011
at 04:39 PM

Evelyn, that claim seems obscure enough to warrant a reference. Even if true, though, it doesn't imply that burning fat was the problem. Burning fat is more efficient and creates fewer ROS's than burning glucose, so that's probably why Dan calls it clean.

24df4e0d0e7ce98963d4641fae1a60e5

on November 01, 2011
at 02:58 PM

"Fat is a very clean fuel" -- Considering that most dysfunctioning mitochondria are loaded with fragments of incompletely burnt fats that get oxidized and wreak metabolic havoc, one might reconsider that stance.

A0f2f0f632d42215944a798486bddde1

(1377)

on November 01, 2011
at 05:48 PM

@ Travis - if body fat reduction is what you're after, I'd say calories in/calories out is the only real factor. As long as you're eating 30g+ protein you shouldn't lose muscle; after that protein vs. fat is more of a health discussion.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on November 01, 2011
at 05:51 PM

Dan, how is fat cheaper? And the amount of fat you need to *absorb nutrients* (guessing you mean fat-sol vitamins) is miniscule. Any cut of store-bought meat (perhaps except for chicken breast) would have enough fat.

A0f2f0f632d42215944a798486bddde1

(1377)

on January 15, 2012
at 11:48 PM

@ Ben - I get a huge-ass jar of coconut oil for $25 bucks, lasts me a month and a half and I use 2-6 Tbsp. a day. That's $0.25 for 100 calories, about equal to potatoes @ $1/lb. Compare to grass-fed ground beef at $5/lb, $0.50-$1.00 for 100 calories (depending on lean percentage).

3
76f3ead3aa977d876bcf3331d35a36e9

(4620)

on October 31, 2011
at 07:39 PM

I think it really depends on the person. An overweight person eating a high protein, low fat/carb diet may feel horrible and not lose weight if A) their body is bad at gluconeogenesis, or B) their body is bad at releasing and using fat as energy due to rarely using this pathway. For both of those points, I think both micronutrient deficiency (magnesium maybe?) and lack of physical activity may be the culprit. I'd say the first step in every weight loss plan is to become replete in all micronutrients and engage in plenty of lipolytic activity. Perhaps there should be an initial period of high fat intake (coconut oil) to encourage the body to switch to fat burning mode. Once the body is good at releasing and using fat, then it seems any dietary fat on top of body fat being burned could create a caloric surplus and stall weight loss. Once the desired weight is achieved, then bacon wrapped cheese covered with butter should be able to be eaten with no problems, since large amounts of stored body fat aren't being burned anymore and dietary fat calories are needed.

So to summarize, I think you're pretty spot on.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 31, 2011
at 07:49 PM

You can't be bad on gluconeogenesis rly, if you do you are not alive. The same goes with beta oxidation. Those are fundamental.

76f3ead3aa977d876bcf3331d35a36e9

(4620)

on October 31, 2011
at 08:01 PM

Yeah, I don't really know much about it. But even you said in your answer: "practice beta oxidation pathways i.e. upregulate specific enzymes and make it efficient enough to provide enough energy for body needs", as if to imply there is a spectrum and the body gets better at it (beta oxidation).

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 31, 2011
at 07:50 PM

Also, caloric surplus can be dissipated as heat, by activation of suppressed pathways etc...

6670b38baf0aae7f4d8ac2463ddc37c0

(3946)

on November 01, 2011
at 01:25 AM

Travis-I have been thinking about this idea lately, of eating low-carb, lower-fat, higher-protein, now that I am "fat adapted" I might not get as hungry as when I first started low-carb. I believe I could lose additional body fat this way. Maybe it is time to experiment.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on November 01, 2011
at 05:40 AM

Annie: I don't believe that I could have eaten like this initially without feeling hypoglycemic. Due perhaps to mineral deficiencies that have been addressed (as always, chromium, manganese, magnesium...maybe even zinc) I'm now able to eat as described or really high carb or whatever on the fly with no issues.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on October 31, 2011
at 08:24 PM

Yeah, I mean you have people like Peter of Hyperlipid who are eating high fat ketogenic diets because they don't want their adipocytes to shrink any further. If you're not at your desired BF%, why not restrict the fat until you get there and then up it to where you are now or close to it?

2
1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on November 01, 2011
at 06:16 AM

I was able to eat lean meats and veggies for three day shifts. This is VLC and not ZC. After three days it was tough to be social / think really clear. Later I added fat that allowed weeks of VLC with no ill effects.

1
5ef574d7893bc816ec52e04139e9bc09

(6097)

on September 07, 2013
at 12:44 AM

I think you're right in that palatable meat generally has a decent amount of fat. Eating fat in isolation (say, by drinking heavy cream) is likely unnecessary even on a zero-carb diet.

5ef574d7893bc816ec52e04139e9bc09

(6097)

on November 01, 2011
at 12:06 AM

^The tradeoff would be marginal at best. I suspect that for most people the satiation per calorie of a slab of meat is higher than that of any isolated fat source.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on October 31, 2011
at 10:13 PM

Yeah, I mean that heavy cream hits the small intestine, gets packaged into chylomicrons and shipped off to the adipocytes for storage, which then release that fat. I can't see how the 1600 calories of fat from a pint of heavy cream has aided fat loss in any conceivable way.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on November 01, 2011
at 04:43 PM

You could be right. I would think a self-experiment would be the best indicator in a case like that.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on November 01, 2011
at 05:48 PM

Kasra, I have to agree. Something thats never mentioned is that eating very high levels of fat means taking in a lot of liquid calories. Fats in the levels LCHF folk eat usually have a good portion of it as liquid. And I just cant get my head around how liquid fat at 9cals/gram is MORE satiating than chewing protein at ~4 cals/gram

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18706)

on October 31, 2011
at 11:23 PM

I could if it increases satiation.

1
C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

on November 01, 2011
at 05:34 PM

PSMF without a doubt works, and works real well when done right. but the key to keeping it in balance is the real high carb-ups occassionally, which need to become more occassional the lower in bf you go. im a chick and it works so its gotta be 10 times easier for guys. make sure you hit some real nutrient dense foods a couple times a week and your set.

note- i dont do it anymore b/c it works 'too' well

0
1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

on March 12, 2013
at 04:50 PM

Not at all. Or, at least not as high in fat as a lot here seem to think. The important thing is to make sure you're getting enough quality protein. Enough is a lot.

I don't live forever in a VLC diet (VLC for me means <50 grams of carbs from green vegetables..I primarily use broccoli and spinach), but I do cycle my carbs, and on VLC days I typically eat whatever amount of fat and protein comes out to be 4-6 whole eggs with spinach, a can of wild Alaskan pink salmon with broccoli, 1-2 scoops of whey protein post workout, chicken or flank steak with broccoli, a can of sardines, and 1% cottage cheese with a small handful of almonds before bed. I've been doing approximately that on my VLC days for years. Sometimes I leave out the almonds. Any more fat and there would be no point to going VLC, at least for me.

Now maybe it's different for people who live forever in VLC, but the days i eat carbs are little different besides including a bit of extra starch for refilling muscle glycogen stores and sometimes berries too. Now, when "bulking" (trying to gain substantial muscle) it's different, and I include a serving of starchy carbs at 4 meals a day and post workout protien shake with 2 cups of blueberries or some other sugary concoction.

The key is always to get a lot of quality protein in. I don't think people get nearly enough. Especially the girls on here that eat like 70% fat and less than 1800 calories a day.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on March 12, 2013
at 06:43 PM

I vary between 145 and 155lbs for the past few years. So my when I "cut" and "bulk" its a long term thing. The goal is to after each bulk be at lower body fat. I'd ultimately like to be 155lbs and 4%BF, instead of 8%. And I'd like to cut and be 150lbs and around 4% instead of cut and be 148lbs 6%.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on March 12, 2013
at 06:44 PM

I vary between 145 and 155lbs for the past few years. So my when I "cut" and "bulk" its a long term thing. The goal is to after each bulk be at lower body fat. I'd ultimately like to be 155lbs and 4%BF, instead of 8%. And I'd like to cut and be 150lbs and around 4% instead of cut and be 148lbs 6%. So after each successive cut and bulk I'd like to weigh a little more and be a little leaner. Get it?

Medium avatar

(39821)

on March 12, 2013
at 05:10 PM

How many of these VLC days do you have per week? It sounds kinda like a mini-PSMF.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on March 12, 2013
at 06:35 PM

Well, it depends. A typical week I do 2-4 days VLC. When I'm "cutting" I do about a month VLC (that's all I really ever seem to need to get my most shredded). For maintenance I vary between 2 and 5 days VLC...it really varies a lot. This week I've done 5 days because I'm going to South Africa with my gf on Friday. When I'm bulking I don't do any, typically. It varies though. I tend to "bulk" in the fall and early winter. And cut only a couple months out of the year. Maintenance is the other 6-8 months.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on March 12, 2013
at 06:37 PM

Well, it depends. A typical week I do 2-4 days VLC. When I'm "cutting" I do about a month VLC (that's all I really ever seem to need to get my most shredded). For maintenance I vary between 2 and 4 days VLC. This week I've done 5 days because I'm going to South Africa with my gf on Friday. When I'm bulking I don't do any, typically. I tend to "bulk" in the fall and early winter. And cut only a couple months out of the year. Maintenance is the other 6-8 months.

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on March 12, 2013
at 06:45 PM

(I realize not everyone agrees with or shares my goals. That's fine. I'm just telling you when I go VLC and why and for how long.)

1edb06ded9ccf098a4517ca4a7a34ebc

(14952)

on March 12, 2013
at 06:36 PM

Well, it depends. A typical week I do 2-4 days VLC. When I'm "cutting" I do about a month VLC (that's all I really ever seem to need to get my most shredded). For maintenance I vary between 2 and 5 days VLC...it really varies a lot. This week I've done 5 days because I'm going to South Africa with my gf on Friday. When I'm bulking I don't do any, typically. It varies though. I tend to "bulk" in the fall and early winter. And cut only a couple months out of the year. Maintenance is the other 6-8 months.

0
7c5b64bdf359e7cdcb0ee15629abdaa9

(50)

on November 14, 2011
at 01:46 PM

hmm..can anyone point me to more info on PSMF? Any other good discussions around that might bring me up to speed? This is the first I've heard of it.

And Amber, so, you just ate more protein and ignored rough 'guideline' amounts given for women (which are what, by the way?)

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on November 14, 2011
at 02:28 PM

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/the-rapid-fat-loss-handbook

7c5b64bdf359e7cdcb0ee15629abdaa9

(50)

on November 15, 2011
at 07:30 AM

Hey Ben, thanks :) yeah...found that, guess I was wanting more of a discussion/thread type link, where I could maybe read more from people who have actually tried it/are doing it. Have not been able to find anything so far...I'll keep looking.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on November 15, 2011
at 05:25 PM

Just make sure you're getting the essential fats and fat soluble vitamins. It would be a lot safer if you did it for short periods of time and then rotated back to more carbs and a bit more fat for a while and then ran another cycle. I personally wouldn't do this for more than a week at a time if I were so inclined.

7c5b64bdf359e7cdcb0ee15629abdaa9

(50)

on November 16, 2011
at 08:55 AM

Thanks Travis, that makes sense. It kind of sounds like the 'Dukan Diet' to me...if it's similarly based on lean protein, then, yeah, it's not something I imagine should be sustained for very long. I'm only looking into it for my SIL who is desperate to kick start some weight loss but has a supposed 'revulsion' to animal fat...*sigh*...and I am worried she is going to do more harm than good.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!